Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet is different depending upon the generating source.
Keep ignoring that a significant amount of photons - that would have struck the surface of the planet - were captured in PV cells and converted into electricity.
ui.adsabs.harvard.edu
Yet, it is still much hotter around solar panels, well into the night. Yep, they absorb all that heat from the sun, intensify it, and kick it back into the atmosphere. It is proven all the time, with the scientific instrument called the thermometer.Every single kWh generated from solar is responsible for an equivalent reduction in solar radiation striking the surface of the planet.
cause you used a computer model and satellite data to theorize the temperatures, as your link statesWhy were measured daytime temps above solar farms cooler? Was the albedo waiting for nighttime?
Yes I did claim that.50 solar plants a year, each 2 square miles, and how many years of this manufacturing do you need. The solar industry says at least 50 years
5000 square miles of solar plants?
And you claimed just at the Four Corners we can produce all the electricity we need?
Maybe one fossil fuel plant can turn out that kind of energy, maybe. But, in ten years so many solar panels will be failing that you wont be able to replace them all let alone build new ones.
It is not electricity that is a problem, it is not electricity that I stated polysilcon manufacturing is reliant on, I stated Fossil Energy, that would be in the form of carbon in order to increase the heat. Carbon comes from fossil fuels, Oil or Natural Gas, even Tar Sands.
Boy, what you miss sometimes when you ignore so many.. Trolls arguing with Trolls, LOL! "You're stupid!" "No, I'm stupid!"My position is based on the FLoT. Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet. It can't do both. Debate that. You are basing your position on an out of date study that has been since been debunked.
The exact same regardless of which generating source it came from. Not so for solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So incrementally there is no difference for waste heat generated from fossil fuels or solar but there is a difference in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.How much waste heat is there from 100 watts of solar power sent to the city?
This is something the Moon Bats have not thought out very well.Every single kWh generated from solar is responsible for an equivalent reduction in solar radiation striking the surface of the planet.
If only you understood why measured temperatures above six solar farms were cooler during daylight hours with solar panels compared to without solar panels. Magic photons?You're right. Burning coal or nat gas doesn't decrease the albedo of the Earth's surface like solar does.
How much extra energy does a solar panel prevent from reflecting back to space?
It has to be even more than the electricity it generates, right?
No. I am not ignoring that the albedo of the PV cells. The albedo of the PV cells capture photons and converts them onto electricity so that they never excites the atoms of the surface they are striking to produce the heat you think the PV cells are responsible for. Only an idiot would ignore that measured daytime temperatures above six solar farms were cooler with panels than without.I'm not ignoring that. The energy of those photons is moved to, and heats, the city.
You keep ignoring that a significant amount of photons - that would have struck the surface of the planet and been reflected back to space - are instead absorbed by the darker panel.
Incorrect.Yet, it is still much hotter around solar panels, well into the night. Yep, they absorb all that heat from the sun, intensify it, and kick it back into the atmosphere. It is proven all the time, with the scientific instrument called the thermometer.
Satellites measured temperatures above six solar farms.cause you used a computer model and satellite data to theorize the temperatures, as your link states
The exact same regardless of which generating source it came from. Not so for solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So incrementally there is no difference for waste heat generated from fossil fuels or solar but there is a difference in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.
It's like you think they are magic photons or something.
no, satellites measured radiation being reflected off the earth, long wave and short wave. That data was then used in a computer model.Satellites measured temperatures above six solar farms.
This says otherwise.no, satellites measured radiation being reflected off the earth, long wave and short wave. That data was then used in a computer model.
It would not of taken months, millions of dollars, a dozen scientists, a dozen other scientists research, if satellites simply measured temperature. If satellites measured temperature, as you imagine, NOAA would not be placing ground temperature stations across the world. If satellites measured temperature, anyone could just call, and ask.
millions of dollars, months of research, a dozen scientists, a research paper, all to tell us the temperature?
The exact same regardless of which generating source it came from. Not so for solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So incrementally there is no difference for waste heat generated from fossil fuels or solar but there is a difference in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.
It's like you think they are magic photons or something.
If only you understood why measured temperatures above six solar farms were cooler during daylight hours with solar panels compared to without solar panels. Magic photons?
Because according to those measurements LESS upwards longwave radiation occurred with solar panels converting photons into electricity; not more.
So to answer your question, there was less infrared radiation due to solar panels converting photons into electricity. The reduction in infrared radiation is equivalent to the energy captured by photons being converted into electricity.
No. I am not ignoring that the albedo of the PV cells. The albedo of the PV cells capture photons and converts them onto electricity so that they never excites the atoms of the surface they are striking to produce the heat you think the PV cells are responsible for. Only an idiot would ignore that measured daytime temperatures above six solar farms were cooler with panels than without.
And you absolutely are ignoring that waste heat is in all cases, so incrementally changing from fossil fuels to solar will have a cooling effect relative to fossil fuels because the waste heat is the same in both cases but solar radiation warming the surface of the planet is not because photons were converted into electricity before they could excite the atoms of the surface to create heat.
Doesn't matter because it's the conversion of photons into electricity that's responsible for the cooling effect. Night time temperatures were only slightly less which indicates that the solar panels shading the surface resulted in less infrared radiation. Solar panels will lose heat much faster than the surface of the planet because there's not much mass there.What's the panel albedo versus the surface albedo?
